The revision petitioners are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Ace). Challenging the judgment of conviction and the order sentencing the accused for rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/-, both the accused are before this Court in this revision petition.

2. It was alleged against the accused that on 15-6-1993, accused 1 and 2 cut and uprooted sandalwood tree in the Government land and made 71 sandalwood billets worth about Rs. 14,000/-, thus committing an offence under Section 86 of the Forest Act. It was further alleged that they were found transporting the said 71 sandalwood billets in a Maruthi Van near Saragodu without valid licence and committed an offence under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. Both the Courts have held that the offence alleged against the accused under Section 86 was not proved whereas the offence alleged under Section 87 of the Act stood proved.

3. Among several points urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the important legal point raised is regarding violation of the mandatory requirement contained under Section 62(3) of the Act, which allegedly vitiates the conviction recorded against the accused. It is his submission that as required under Section 62(3) of the Act, the Officer seized the sandalwood is required to report the seizure and forward the seized material to the designated authorised authority under the provisions contained under Section 71-A of the Act. Neither in the evidence nor in the materials produced before the Court, there is anything to suggest that this procedure is complied with, is the submission. In this regard, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Court in the ease of Ningappa Bhimappa Gundammanavar and Another v State of Mysore. It is further contended by the learned Counsel that the seizure is also not proved in accordance with law as none of the pinch witnesses to the seizure are examined. He submits that seizure is also not attested by independent panchas but has been attested by the officials of the Forest Department. His next contention is that there is delay in submitting the FIR before the Magistrate. He has lastly contended that admittedly, the investigation was conducted by two officials out of whom only P.W. 2 who conducted the major part of the investigation is examined but the higher officer to whom the investigation was later on entrusted has not been examined.

4. Sri Maqbool Ahmed, learned Government Pleader supports the findings recorded and the judgments passed.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the judgments under challenge, the only point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is:

"Whether the judgments under challenge recording conviction of the accused-revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Act suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction?"

6. As major emphasis is laid by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the violation of the requirements spelt out under sub-section (3) of Section 62 of the Act, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Section 62(1) deals with seizure of property liable to confiscation. It provides that if there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, the said forest produce along with all tools, boats, vehicles etc., used in committal of the said offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. Sub-section (3) of Section 62, which is relevant to the present case, states as under:

“(3) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property or the receptacle or vehicle (if any) in which it is contained a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall, as soon as may be make a report of such sei